Author
Topic: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST (Read 12130 times)

In the past, both an extra venue has been added and bouts have been made bigger. Both of these options have cons, obviously.

While it would be nice to accomodate everyone, we have to balance that against other things. As of right now, any VENUE that wants to register someone is able to do so, provided they have money by the deadline. I don't think we need to mandate an expansion of the tournament as long as that is the case.

T. Miller has a good point about expansion, whether or not that is put to use immediately or in the future.We made decisions to accommodate more teams & should consider it for individuals (although the bouts are already largewith questions about draw skew & other things). While adding a fifth bout or fifth early+late set of bouts might be a gargantuan task, I know I've already wished/thought of it at previous events.

On the other hand,there are new venues, venues who don't send reps, a lot of slots on venues who are on it.

My other question is about the queue of storm poets.I imagine it is first come first served, too.So if a poet makes it secondor third in her local slam, held right around the time that venues can begin registering,and she has the cash, but it's before the "open to all" deadline, I think she gets in earlier in the line. Maybe?

People also forget, I think, the "prior champion" slot (that would be one poet from Portland). The more of these events we have, the more champs there are in slots, right?

Being tougher on deadlines & restrictions might help? Or to know how the list is filling up (I know there was a call like that that went out before, but I don't think it happens every year).I would be interested to know if the waiting list poets all applied within hours or days of each other?

Storms are not first come first serve. If you look at both of the threads where we talked about how storms were picked you'll see that it doesn't have anything to do with it. If you are from a Certified Venue and your SM doesn't pay on time (Certified Venues get 3 weeks to have a PROMISED slot for their venue) you will get put in the pile with all of the STorm applicants.

Updating people on how many slots are left is nearly impossible. I can't make the list until the day registration closes. I have to look at each applicant. I can't do that until Registration closes. You can always assume that the smaller tournaments are going to have more and more applicants as we increase our number of Certified Venues and we grow as an organization. More folks want to play which means we have some pretty great competition to get into these smaller events.

It sucks that some great poets are not in the event, but they can all try for the Last Chance Slam (that's why we do it) and it means that the competition for these tournaments is tough. It means you have to bring your A game. We can't let everyone play all the time. Not if this is a world competition. If we want to change the way that we run things and let 100 people in WoWPS and iWPS then we're changing the game. It's no longer about the battle to BE the best. It's about being more inclusive. If that's what you all want, we can discuss that. But that's not how these tournaments were set up.

as someone whose had this argument before, i would like to see us at least consider doing for wowps what was done for iwps. If you wanna argue 15/16 person prelims is too much, yould have trouble arguing that 13 poet prelims dont work. Since we just made an exception for iwps. And in an effort to see the tourneys reflect eachother as best as possible in terms of how poets are included - - i think its only fair to at least open the floor to discussing making these prelims 13 poet prelims as well. (add the first 6 from the list). i didnt hear any complaints about that in cleveland, or since. Lets make wowps mirror iwps as best as possible, and give the next six poets a spot in 13-poet prelims.

Also @Dylan i completely disagree that adding fifteen minutes of poetry wildly alters how the slam functions. Everything else you said i like.

And, again to everyones point about the 'queue'. As this same debate happened in october for iwps: again, the system includes "many factors". which are not "prioritized". So theres really no way to know how these specific names came out, other than to say: everyone should fully fill out their apps, because ive been made to understand that your answers to those questions in the bottom third of the app weigh heavily. distance is a factor, but not everything. generally, i agree with anyone who wants a firm, clear, easy to understand list of priorities. we dont have that now, and i think these debates and headaches for everrrrrybody would go away if we had that.

Thank you very much to Abbey for all the work she did put into trying to get this right. Clearly this is a popular tournament that has a lot of interest, but trying organize all the submissions into the best possible list based on all the factors that are considered is a daunting task that I know I am not up to.

I do know I am looking forward to seeing everyone in a few weeks and introducing y'all to my family! My daughter is already super excited to see all these strong female poets!

abbey has clearly busted her behind through floods/children. this isnt about Abbey at all. its about a system which forces the decision on "who should be allowed in the tournament" (quoted from abbey's much-pasted priority post) onto a single person. Its not fair that Abbey should have to deal with all that crap. We should all have a system that removes that pressure from any one person. A clear, identifiable, system which would produce the same results everytime.

but in the meantime. i repeat, to whoever's decision it is to make:

if the EC, or the Host City made the call on it's own, without a SM vote, to expand by six poets IWPS2011. Why shouldnt the same availability be made for WOWPS2012? Youre talking about less than five minutes of additional time in each show. If we can do it for iwps, i dont see why we shouldnt be held to the same standard for wowps. If im missing info, im open to hearing it. But from my standpoint, to whoever is in charge of these decisions:

12 person slams are horrible. 8 person indy slams are best. Audience and competitor fatigue make for an "eh" show, unless it's a Bout of Doom, and even then there are no guarantees. In a 4x4 team bout, you get 8 less poems than an indy bout. Twenty-four poem bouts are equivalent to a hot dog eating contest.

Logged

"The world must be all fucked up when men travel first class and literature goes as freight."

I would like to add to the pile from behind the scenes that just because we have done something in the past does not mean it was the best idea. We have vacillated on this issue many years for many reasons and I have no problem telling any of you that I think we already have the best shot at the bet show with what we have for a number of reasons. Adding poets makes poets feel good and it buys PSi some good will until the next competitor list is released for the next event (if we're lucky) but the conversation that has to take place after the fact - and that only the EC is having - is whether or not it worked. No one mentions that the awesome host that scared up a venue to meet "demand" gave us a sub-par venue or a venue that couldn't generate audience and that may have even cost us money. We've done a lot of things in the past. Doesn't mean they were right. Some of them were experiments to determine how we should frame this in the future.

No one mentions that the awesome host that scared up a venue to meet "demand" gave us a sub-par venue or a venue that couldn't generate audience and that may have even cost us money. We've done a lot of things in the past. Doesn't mean they were right.

Exactly.

Logged

"The world must be all fucked up when men travel first class and literature goes as freight."

I agree Scott, that major changes to the structure, notably ones that involve the headache of additional venues (not to mention the cost of those venues) is something to be weighed heavily by those who know best; and by those whose job that is. But I don't think adding six poets, and not another venue, is a terribly large change. Further, I believe if we made that exception for the immediately preceding, all-gender tournament, it's worth making the argument that we owe the same exception ( a big deal for those poets) to these six women. And in terms of audience experience, the prime objective, I'd like to imagine the six poets added to iwps served to only enhance and enrich the experience of our crowds (some of whome were worthwhile enough to our patrons that they were put on final stage for their work that week).

This past IWPS was the worst indy event I have ever seen. It was the St. Louis of Indy events. Some judges were paid in Red Bulls just to walk into the empty room and hold up a scorecard. So please elaborate on these enriched "crowds." It was also the most barren finals I have ever witnessed. What good is that, really, to the competitors, if we're actually here to share our art?

What's the point of having everyone involved in a tournament if it can't be guaranteed there will be an audience for it? How much promotion can be expected for a venue that is signed on to be a part of the tournament mere weeks in advance? Do those who got their registration in on time get to have the venues that were booked ahead of time?

There is a long waiting list for WoWps every year. This shows that the event itself is successful. To stretch it thin dilutes its efficacy. I, a past champion, was on last year's waiting list. I did not expect special treatment. When I did not win the Last Chance Slam, I hosted my ass off (AND taught a two-day workshop)

Poets aren't owed anything. These tournaments have a cap for a reason.

Logged

"The world must be all fucked up when men travel first class and literature goes as freight."